RAMESH AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Ramesh, Seema, Sombir @ Somdutt and Vinod Kumar faced the trial before the Addl. Sessions Court, Narnaul, but the first accused Ramesh was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 3 1/2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment fine to undergo a further period of 6 months R.I. Accused Ramesh and Seema were convicted under Section 120 -B of the IPC and were each sentenced to undergo 3 « years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default to undergo a further period of 3 months R.I. The convicted accused Ramesh and Seema have preferred the present appeal. 2.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the case of the prosecution reads as follows. On 17.4.1999, at about 2.30 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW3) was coming back to her village after taking water from water tank of the village. Thereafter, accused Seema invited her to her house and took her to a room. Accused Seema tied her hands and legs with a piece of cloth and came out of the room. Accused Ramesh who was already sitting in the said room took the prosecutrix in his grip and attempted to commit rape on her. Reshma, sister of the mother of the prosecutrix and Lalli (PW4), mother of the prosecutrix came over there, opened the door and rescued prosecutrix from the house of accused Seema. The prosecutrix proceeded alongwith her uncle Karan Singh to the police station. On the way she met ASI Tara Chand and gave statement Ex.PD and set the law in motion. Dr. S.N. Sharma, PW1 conducted Ossification test and opined that the prosecutrix was 16 years -/+ 1 year. The accused was arrested and he was subjected to medico -legal examination by PW2 Dr. O.P. Saroha. He opined on examination that accused Ramesh was fit enough to have sexual intercourse. PW6 Dr. Suman Bishnoi, medico -legally examined prosecutrix and found two crossing scabbed abrasions measuring 6 cm. each over the left forearm and three linear and parallel scabbed abrasions on the right forearm measuring 6 cm. each. She had not found any other injury on the person of the prosecutrix PW3 including her private parts. Of course, there was some bleeding from her vagina, but the same was on account of her menstrual cycle. PW6 had returned a finding that the prosecutrix was not subjected to sexual intercourse.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that PW3 has completely given a go -by to her original version before PW12 ASI Tara Chand. Her evidence is found to be totally contradictory with that of her complaint. The material improvements she had made before the Court would go to belie the very case of the prosecution that there was an attempt to commit rape consequent upon the criminal conspiracy alleged to have been hatched between those two accused. Reshma, the sister of PW4 was not examined by the prosecuting agency. PW4 Lalli would not have witnessed the presence of accused Ramesh as she came only after Reshma arrived at the scene of occurrence and retrieved the prosecutrix. Referring to the evidence of PW6, learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that there was virtually no attempt made by accused Ramesh, inasmuch as, no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix was found. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has misdirected itself and come to a wrong conclusion.